E 

433 


BANCROFT 
LIBRARY 


~HE:  BRARY 


"HE  UNIVERSI'  T 


OF  CAI  [FORNIA 


SPEECH 


OF 


J.  WILEY   EDMANDS, 

OF  MASSACHUSETTS, 


DELIVERED 


IN  THE  HOUSE   OF   REPRESENTATIVES,  MAY  20,  1854, 


ON    THE 


NEBRASKA  AND  KANSAS  TERRITORIAL  BILL. 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 
BUELL   &   BLANCHARD,    PRINTERS. 

1854. 


SPEECH  OF  MR.  EDMANDS. 


The  House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the 
Union — 

Mr.  EDM ANDS  said : 

Mr.  CHAIRMAN  :  When  I  took  my  seat  in  this  Hall,  nothing  was 
further  from  my  purpose  than  to  address  the  House  on  the  subject  of 
Slavery — it  being  a  Southern  institution,  and  to  be  treated  plainly,  hav 
ing  to  be,  to  some  extent,  treated  sectionally.  But  in  deference  to  a 
confiding  constituency,  who  are  greatly  excited  on  this  momentous  ques 
tion,  and  to  those  friends  who  have  expressed  their  expectation  that  I 
should  do  more  than  give  a  silent  vote  on  it,  I  have  decided,  since  the 
commencement  of  the  week,  to  occupy  a  portion  of  the  time  allotted  to 
this  debate.  I  am,  Mr.  Chairman,  opposed  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  on  principle  and  expediency.  And  yet,  believing  as  I  do,  that 
the  success  of  this  measure  will  result  in  reaction ;  that  this  Slavery 
movement  will  stir  up  mighty  elements  of  agitation  and  antagonism,  if 
I  gave  my  support  to  the  bill,  I  should  stand  fully  justified,  I  think, 
by  those  opponents  of  Slavery,  who  commenced  a  political  career  on 
agitation,  have  been  sustained  by  agitation,  and  who  expect  to  accom 
plish  their  purposes  through  agitation.  I  profess  to  stand  on  the  con 
servatism  of  the  party  to  which  I  belong.  I  am  a  moderatist  in  politics, 
and  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  do  all  that  properly  lies  in  my  power  to  defeat 
the  bill  before  us.  I  do  not  intend  to  discuss  the  abstract  question  of 
Slavery,  but  to  offer  very  briefly  to  the  Committee  such  general  views 
as  the  measure  has  suggested  to  my  mind. 

Let  us  consider  the  position  of  this  country,  in  reference  to  the  great 
subject  of  Slavery,  when  the  Representatives  left  home  to  attend 
to  their  duties  here.  What  were  called  the  compromise  acts  of  1850 
had  been  passed.  Those  measures  were  looked  to,  to  settle  the  irrita 
ting  questions  that  were  estranging  the  North  and  the  South.  One  of 
those  measures  was  extremely  repugnant  to  our  people ;  but,  sir,  with 
all  their  sensitiveness  to  the  requirements  of  Slavery,  their  aversion  did 
not  overcome  their  acquiescence.  Our  people  are  a  law-abiding  people, 
and  they  resolved  to  support  the  1850  compromise  for  the  sake  of  peace, 
harmony,  and  good  brotherhood,  under  the  hope  that  it  would  put  an 
end  to  sectional  strife.  Both  the  great  political  parties,  into  which  the 
country  has  long  been  divided,  at  once  entered  into  an  adherence  to  the 
compromises  of  1850,  and  they  both  recorded  their  pledges  of  fidel 
ity  in  the  articles  of  political  faith  adopted  by  their  respective  National 
Conventions. 


Hear  what  was  declared  as  the  policy  of  the  Democratic  party  by  the 
Baltimore  Convention,  June  1,  1852 : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Democratic  party  will  resist  all  attempts  at  renewing,  in  Con 
gress  or  out  of  it,  the  agitation  of  the  Slavery  question,  under  whatever  shape  or  color 
the  attempt  may  be  made." 

And  by  the  Whig  party,  at  the  National  Convention  at  Baltimore, 
June  8,  1852.  In  their  last  resolve  they  say  : 

"  We  deprecate  all  further  agitation  of  the  questions  thus  settled,  as  dangerous  to  oar 
peace,  and  will  discountenance  all  efforts  to  continue  or  renew  such  agitation,  when 
ever,  wherever,  or  however  made." 

They  were  no  longer  to  countenance  sectional  agitation.  The  result 
of  the  late  Presidential  election  showed  how  ready  the  great  mass  of  the 
people  of  the  North  were  to  respond  to  those  pledges.  So  far  did  the 
compromise  of  1850  become  an  active  element  in  the  campaign,  that 
thousands  of  Whigs  at  the  North,  having  been  made  to  believe  that  the 
Democratic  candidate  for  the  Presidency  was  more  favorable  to  them  than 
General  Scott  was,  withheld  their  votes  from  their  party's  candidate,  or 
gave  them  for  General  Pierce.  When  they  refrained  from  acting  with 
their  own  party,  they  had  the  satisfaction  of  feeling  that  the  success  of 
their  political  opponents  would  secure  peace  and  harmony  to  the  coun 
try,  if  nothing  else. 

When  we  assembled  together  here  last  December,  no  sectional  strife 
existed  within  the  borders  of  the  land.  Southern  men  and  Northern 
men  met  as  brethren  of  one  family ;  and,  so  far  as  regards  sectional  dis 
turbance,  all  was  harmonious.  But,  sir,  how  is  it  now?  How  happens  it 
that  the  whole  North,  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Mississippi,  is  excited 
and  agitated  to  a  degree  unprecedented?  Is  it  because  they  are  dis 
loyal  to  the  compromise  of  1850,  or  unfaithful  to  the  pledges  given  in 
1852?  No,  sir.  It  is  because  they  see  a  "ruthless  hand,  reckless 
enough  to  disturb  that  compromise  which  had  become  canonized  in  the 
hearts  of  the  American  people,"*  stretched  forth  to  destroy  that  which 
they  have,  for  a  third  of  a  century,  been  taught,  and  accustomed  them 
selves  to  consider,  as  sacred  and  inviolable.  It  is  because  they  see  a 
portion  of  the  representatives  of  the  American  people  ready  to  desecrate 
the  "  canonized"  works  of  their  forefathers,  and  to  remove  the  ancient 
landmarks  set  up  by  those  who  have  gone  before  us— men  whose  acts 
of  patriotism  and  integrity  we  may  be  proud  to  imitate. 

Sir,  in  the  midst  of  a  profound  peace  throughout  the  land,  and  while 
no  one  was  dreaming  of  danger  or  disturbance,  a  measure  was  suddenly 
introduced  into  the  other  branch  of  Congress,  which  has  produced  all 
this  turmoil  and  excitement.  Conscious  that  it  would  stir  up  sectional 
strife  and  bitter  opposition,  the  attempt  was  made  to  push  it  through, 
without  giving  the  people  time  scarcely  to  express  their  sentiments,  cer 
tainly  before  another  Congress  .should  be  here,  chosen  by  the  people  in 
reference  to  this  issue.  Uncalled  for  by  any  one  over  whom  its  action 
directly  extends  ;  unwelcomed  by  any  body  of  the  people ;  "  brought 
into  the  world  scarce  half  made  up  ;??  amended  again  and  again,  until 
it  appears  before  us  a  different  creature  from  that  which  sprung  from 

*  See  address  of  Senator  DOUGLAS  to  his  constituents,  in  1848. 


the  committee's  first  incubation,  it  still  retains  the  blind  partiality  of 
its  originator. 

In  the  Senate  it  was  forced  through  in  the  night,  all  other  measures 
being  compelled  to  give  way ;  and  in  this  body  the  track  has  been 
cleared  for  its  triumphant  march.  The  fiat  went  forth  last  week — 
Monday  —  that  debate  must  be  closed,  and  the  vote  taken  before 
Tuesday  week,  the  day  on  which  the  Pacific  railroad  bill  had  been  made 
the  special  order.  Bills  of  the  most  pressing  importance  were  laid 
aside.  The  Deficiency  bill,  for  the  passage  of  which  we  were  told  by 
the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  there  was  great  urgency,  its  delay 
involving  public  waste  and  private  losses  ;  the  important  Army  and 
Navy  appropriation,  and  the  Civil  and  Diplomatic  appropriation  bills,  the 
French  spoliation  bill  responding  to  the  claims  of  injured  citizens  for 
simple  justice,  all  were  summarily  set  aside  as  of  minor  importance. 
Not  being  able  to  accomplish  their  purpose  of  closing  debate,  as  the 
friends  of  the  bill  announced,  they  insisted  upon  overriding  the  Pacific 
railroad  bill.  A  minority,  to  which  I  have  the  satisfaction  of  belonging, 
determined  to  use  all  proper  parliamentary  means  to  resist  this  pro 
ceeding,  believing  the  consideration  of  the  Pacific  railroad  bill  should 
come  up  in  its  regular  order.  We  were  defeated,  on  a  suspension  of 
rules,  by  some  votes  that  we  supposed  would  not  be  found  against  us  at 
the  very  point  on  which  all  previous  efforts  had  been  hinging. 

The  history  of  such  proceedings  would  lead  one  to  infer  that  the  bill 
before  us  was  a  measure  fraught  with  blessings  and  benefits  for  all ;  that 
it  was  a  measure  of  peace,  coming  to  a  distracted  country  fraught  with 
healing  on  its  wings  and  the  olive  branch  in  its  hand,  instead  of  bearing 
in  its  arms  a  Pandora  box,  from  which  have  already  flown  discord,  dis 
sension,  and  distrust. 

The  historical  argument  has  been  made  so  often  in  this  discussion, 
that  I  shall  not  enter  upon  it  here ;  but  I  would  ask  by  whom  is  this 
Territorial  bill  demanded,  and  how  great  the  necessity  for  the  immediate 
organizing  of  the  Territory  ?  It  is  not  by  or  for  the  people  there,  there 
being  not  more  than  fifteen  hundred,  all  told,  besides  Indians,  in  the 
Territory.  The  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs,  in  a  report  made  by 
him  November  9,  1853,  says  : 

"  On  the  llth  October,  the  day  on  which  I  left  the  frontier,  there  was  no  settle 
ment  made  in  any  part  of  Nebraska.  From  all  the  information  I  could  obtain,  there 
were  but  three  white  men  in  the  Territory,  except  such  as  were  there  by  authority  of 
law,  and  those  adopted,  by  marriage  and  otherwise,  into  Indian  families." 

It  ought  to  be  an  urgent  necessity  indeed,  to  justify  us  in  organizing  this 
Territory,  and  calling  our  people  to  settle  there  before  making  treaties 
with  the  Indians,  fourteen  tribes  of  whom  were  transplanted  there  by  our 
own  act  and  under  our  own  guarantee  of  security.  There  surely  is 
nothing  in  the  manifest  tendency  argument  to  justify  it,  though  dwelt 
upon  with  much  emphasis  during  this  debate.  Ordinary  considerations 
of  justice  and  policy  should  have  prevented  any  attempts  to  open  the 
country  for  settlement,  until  we  had  treated  with,  and  attempted  to 
satisfy,  the  Indians  there  located.  The  Commissioner,  in  this  connection, 
says  in  the  report  already  referred  to,  "  the  enunciation  of  the  opinion 
that  the  country  was  open  to  occupation  and  settlement  at  the  time  it 
was  promulgated,  was  most  unfortunate." 


6 

Is  it  wanted  by  the  South  ?     They  profess  that  Slavery  will  not  go 
there  to  any  extent.     This  has  been  repeatedly  stated  by  the  Southern 
advocates  of  the  bill.     Senator  BUTLER,  of  South  Carolina,  said,  in  his 
speech  in  the  Senate,  "It  is  certain  that  Nebraska  and  Kansas  will 
never  be  slaveholding  States."     Senator  BADGER,  of  North  Carolina, 
said,  "  I  have  no  more  idea  of  seeing  a  slave  population  in  either  Kan 
sas  or  Nebraska,  than  I  have  of  seeing  it  in  Massachusetts."     Senator 
HUNTER,  of  Virginia,  expressed  the  same  views.     This  being  true,  this 
great  Territory  might  remain  unorganized  for  a  half  century,  so  far  as 
the  South  is  concerned.     They  are  not  a  migratory  people.     They  are 
fixed  to  their  institutions,  and,  comparatively,  have  neither  the  dispo 
sition  nor  ability  to  pioneer  in  the  wilderness.     Not  so  with  the  North. 
Their  people  are  moving  westward,  and,  having  reached  the  confines,  are 
now  ready  to  occupy  the  adjoining  country.     But  they  want  it  in  an 
available  condition,  a  condition  fit  for  their  occupancy  and  improve 
ment.      Where  they  plant  themselves,  the  sunlight  of  -Freedom  must 
shine,  knowing,  as  they  do,  that  in.  the  train  of  Slavery  follow  clouds 
and  darkness,  unpropitious  to  growth  and  prosperity.     Here  is  a  Terri 
tory  eight  times  as  large  as  the  six  States  of  New  England ;    and  the 
question  is,  Will  you  allow  it  to  the  North,  and  refuse  it  to  the  South  1 
I  speak  of  their  respective  institutions,  wjiose  elements  are  as  different 
as  oil  and  water,  and  without  reference  to  binding  agreement  between 
the  two  sections.     It  will  be  admitted  that  the  introduction  of  one  is, 
to  a  certain  extent,  a  bar  to  the  other.     It  is  well  adapted  to  the 
occupancy  of  one,  and  professedly  unfavorable  to  the  other.     But  we 
find  the  South  clamorous  for  this  Territory.     They  are  either  demand 
ing  what  they  do  not  need,  or  they  have  aims  and  purposes  not  pro 
fessed.     This  is  manifest  in  the  fact  that  a  bill  simply  for  the  organi 
zation  of  this  Territory  they  would  utterly  oppose.     Such  a  bill  would 
be  acceptable  to  a  very  large  majority  of  this  House,  uninfluenced  by 
party  appliances.     But,  to  be  sanctioned  by  them,  it  must  be  accompa 
nied  by  another  bill — a  bill  to  repeal  the  eighth  section  of  the  act  of 
1820,  prohibiting  Slavery  in  the  Louisiana  Territory  north  of  36°  80'. 
This  would  ordinarily  be  the  method  of  disposing  of  that  portion  of  the 
act  of  1820,  and  it  would  probably  have  been  the  mode  adopted  at  this 
time,  were  it  not  thought  too  inconvenient.      In  doing  this,  another 
compromise  would  have  to  be  made,  and  the  proposition  must  bear  an 
equivalent.     To  save  this,  they  concluded  to  put  the  creation  and  the 
abrogation  of  law  into  one  and  the  same  bill,  hitch  it  on  to  the  old 
1850  compromise  acts,  though  by  very  long  traces — and  make  them 
draw  the  load.     That  this  was  an  after-thought,  our  people  fully  be 
lieve.    In  my  own  State,  you  could  not  find  enough  to  make  a  jury  who 
ever  imagined  the  acts  of  1850  had  anything  to  do  at  the  time  with 
the  abrogation  of  the  old  36°  30'  line;    in  which  they  are  sustained 
by  their  own  Representatives,  who  were  actors  in  that  legislation.     I 
should  like  to  know  how  the  consideration  in  offset  for  free  California 
(free,  too,  when  acquired)  and  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade  in  the  Dis 
trict  of  Columbia,  was  marked  out  respectively  in  that  compromise — what 
proportion  for  Utah,  what  for  New  Mexico,  and  what  for  the  enactment 
of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  7     We  were  told  by  gentlemen  from  the 


South,  in  1850,  that  there  was  so  little  of  New  Mexico  north  of  36°  30' 
that  it  was  of  no  account ;  there  was  no  possibility  of  Slavery  in  Utah ; 
that  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  was  called  for  by  the  Constitution ;  but  .as 
for  repealing  the  Missouri  restriction,  that  was  not  mentioned.  Was 
it  on  account  of  its  insignificance  ? 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  hear  Mr.  DOUGLAS  himself  on  this  point.  In  a 
published  letter  of  his,  of  23d  October,  1850,  he  writes,  in  reference  to 
the  compromises  of  1850  : 

"Neither  party  has  gained  or  lost  anything,  so  far  as  the  question  of  Slavery  is  con 
cerned." 

Or,  in  other  words,  there  was  no  loss  to  the  North  of  the  Missouri 
compromise. 

Mr.  WEBSTER  said,  July  IT,  1850,  in  the  Senate  Chamber : 

"  The  next  inquiry  is,  What  do  Massachusetts  and  the  North,  the  Anti-Slavery  States, 
lose  by  this  adjustment?  I  put  the  question  to  every  gentleman  here,  and  to  every  man 
in  the  country.  They  lose  the  application  of  what  is  called  the  Wilmot  Proviso  to  these 
Territories,  and  that  is  all.  'They  wish  to  get  California  into  the  Union,  and  to  quiet 
New  Mexico.  They  wish  to  terminate  the  dispute  about  the  Texas  boundary,  cost  what 
it  may.  They  make  no  sacrifice  in  all  these.  What  they  sacrifice  is  this :  the  application 
of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  to  the  Territories  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah,  and  that  is  all" 

No  abrogation  of  the  Missouri  compromise  is  hinted  there. 
Mr.  CLAY  said : 

"Neither  party  makes  any  concessions  of  principle  at  all,  though  the  concessions  of 
forbearance  are  ample." 

The  abrogation  of  the  Missouri  compromise  was  not  reached  in 
these  controversies,  either  in  fact  or  by  implication.  The  wish  is 
father  to  the  thought. 

The  fourteenth  section  of  the  bill  before  us  provides :  "  That  the 
Constitution,  and  all  laws  of  the  United  States  which  are  not  locally 
inapplicable,  shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect  within  the  said  Terri 
tory  of  Nebraska  as  elsewhere  within  the  United  States,  except  the 
eighth  section  of  the  act  preparatory  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  into 
the  Union,  approved  March  6,  1820,  which,  being  inconsistent  with  the 
principle  of  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  Slavery  in  the  States 
and  Territories,  as  recognised  by  the  legislation  of  1850,  commonly 
called  the  compromise  measures,  is  hereby  declared  inoperative  and 
void." 

The  thirty-second  section  makes  the  same  provision  for  Kansas. 

Thus  consistency  is  made  the  plea  in  the  bill  for  repealing  the  Mis 
souri  compromise,  and  its  advocates  rest  on  the  principles  of  legislation 
established  in  1850.  That  there  really  was  nothing  intended  in  those 
acts  to  operate  in  this  way  I  have  shown  by  the  evidence  of  the  chief 
actors  in  that  legislation.  I  should  like  to  know,  Mr.  Chairman,  when 
this  keen  sense  of  consistency  first  came  to  the  originators  of  this  bill. 
Professing  to  be  actuated  by  principle,  would  they  not  reveal  their  own 
views,  at  least  on  the  first  occasion  of  territorial  legislation  *?  Now, 
the  first  Territory  which  was  organized  after  1850  was  Washington 
Territory,  in  1853,  and  we  heard  not  a  word  then  of  any  principle  of 
consistency  existing  to  affect  their  legislation.  If  three  long  years  were 
not  sufficient  time  to  open  to  their  astute  perceptions  the  discovery  of 


8 

a  new  principle  in  the  legislation  of  1850,  abolishing  that  of  1820,  is  it 
surprising  that  the  people  should  be  unable  to  discover  it  now  1  Again  : 
If  the  act  of  1850  is  paramount,  because  the  later,  and  supersedes 
that  of  1820,  why  are  not  the  principles  of  the  legislation  of  1850 
superseded  by  those  of  1853,  for  there  is  no  inconsistency  between  the 
act  of  1820  and  the  Territorial  act  of  1853,  and  upon  the  same  reason 
ing  the  legislation  of  1853  would  confirm  that  of  1820. 

Without  the  clause  repealing  the  old  Missouri  compromise  restriction, 
the  South  would  not  have  attached  any  value  to  it  as  an  act  of  legisla 
tion.  It  is  this,  which  has  "  edged  the  appetite  of  action."  But  why 
should  the  South  urge  with  such  pertinacity  the  abrogation  of  this  re 
striction  on  a  Territory  which  they  say  Slavery  will  not  enter  to  any 
extent?  It  is  fair  to  conclude  there  is  an  object  before  them,  somewhat 
proportionate  to  the  ardent  struggle  which  they  are  making  for  it.  If 
it  be  not  the  extension  of  Slavery  there,  it  must  be  some  other  object, 
outweighing,  in  their  estimate,  the  tremendous  evils  which  they  must 
know  that  struggle  is  producing,  in  the  disturbance  of  the  whole  coun 
try,  in  the  alienation  of  good  feelings,  and  the  kindling  of  sectional 
animosities.  Will  they  risk  all  this  for  an  imaginary  purpose?  Is 
there  any  ulterior  object  outside  of  the  Territory  itself?  And  is  this 
only  a  feeder  to  the  great  stream  of  Slavery  aggression  ?  Are  there 
any  nascent  germs  yet  unexposed,  to  be  forced  hereafter  in  the  hot-bed 
of  Slavery? 

So  far  as  I  have  observed,  our  Southern  friends  seem  more  sensitive 
on  the  subject  of  rights  of  property  than  on  any  other  in  this  connection, 
and  they  ask  why  a  man  from  the  North  should  be  allowed  to  carry  his 
property  to  the  Territories,  and  the  man  from  the  South  be  refused  the 
privilege  of  carrying  there  the  property  which  he  owns  ;  and  they  seem 
not  satisfied  with  the  reply,  that  the  slave  is  a  chattel  only  by  local  law. 
One  would  suppose  that  the  slaveholders  imagined  that  they  had  a  nat 
ural  right  to  their  slaves  as  property.  There  are  ten  slaves,  on  an 
average,  to  each  slaveholder  in  the  United  States.  Now,  when  the 
individual  slaveholder  rests  his  claim  to  his  ten  slaves  on  the  ground  of 
natural  right  solely,  he  rests  it  on  a  right  to  be  tested  by  natural  power, 
and  he  must  trust  to  that  issue.  The  only  right  by  which  he  holds  his 
slaves  is  a  legal  right ;  and  in  the  absence  of  laws  fixing  the  relations  of 
each,  the  slave  has  the  rights  of  a  free  man.  The  Constitution  has  not 
interfered  to  prevent  the  holding  of  slaves  as  property  under  State 
legislation,  but  it  does  not  carry  Slavery  anywhere.  In  the  absence  of 
local  legislation,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  property  in  man  by  any  other 
means  than  force ;  and  the  slaveholder  takes  the  risks  and  conditions 
of  this  species  of  property  when  he  invests  in  it.  But  practically  he 
stands  on  the  same  footing  as  the  man  who  emigrates  from  Massachu 
setts,  who  carries  not  with  him,  and  does  not  there  use,  the  property 
possessed  at  home.  He  leaves  behind  him  his  farm,  his  cattle,  &c. 
They  are  still  in  Massachusetts,  and  if  sold,  their  representative,  in 
money ',  is  taken  to  his  new  home.  The  proceeds  of  the  property  of  the 
slaveholder  can  go  in  the  same  way,  and  any  inequality  in  this  respect, 
is  more  imaginary  than  real.  But  on  the  ground  of  equity,  this  prop 
erty  question  will  not  bear  discussion.  In  its  political  bearings,  its 


9 

operation  is  all  against  the  North.  We  acknowledge  our  constitutional 
obligations,  and  have  no  disposition  to  fall  behind  them,  but  we  have  no 
intention  of  yielding  to  requirements  beyond  them.  Here  let  me  say, 
the  elements  of  this  peculiar  institution  of  our  Southern  brethren,  serve 
their  turn,  as  circumstances  offer.  The  property  element  is  presented 
when  their  interests  are  to  be  protected,  and  the  population  element 
serves  them  when  political  power  is  to  be  acquired. 

The  doctrine  of  non-intervention  is  put  forth  and  relied  on,  by  our 
Northern  friends,  to  justify  their  support  of  this  bill.  An  examination 
of  the  bill  shows  that  it  is  non-intervention  mainly  on  one  point,  and 
non-intervention  on  that  is  to  be  effected  by  actual  intervention.  The 
Territory  is  now  restricted  from  the  approach  of  Slavery  by  law,  and  it 
can  only  enter  by  the  intervention  of  Congress.  An  act  of  intervention 
is  now  to  be  resorted  to,  to  carry  out  the  principles  of  non-intervention 
said  to  be  established  in  1850.  Under  the  plea  of  consistency  with  the 
principles  of  that  legislation,  a  law  is  proposed,  involving  the  greatest 
inconsistency.  The  doctrine  of  non-intervention  is  to  be  maintained  by 
a  direct  act  of  intervention,  in  the  abrogation  of  the  old  Missouri  com 
promise.  Moreover,  the  principle  of  non-intervention  in  our  own  Ter 
ritories  is  to  be  made  to  sanction  intervention  with  foreign  Governments, 
and  anticipated  success  in  the  extension  of  Slavery  at  home,  comes  her 
alded  with  warlike  demonstrations  to  suppress  emancipation  abroad.  But 
they  say  it  is  the  great  principle  of  Democracy — self-government — 
which  they  are  advocating.  When  we  consider,  that  so  fa%  from  the 
people  of  Nebraska  Territory  having  the  right  to  self-government,  it 
is  expressly  provided  in  this  bill  'that  the  general  laws  made  by  Con 
gress  shall  apply  over  them,  they  having  no  representation  in  the  body 
which  makes  them,  and  that  their  Governor  is  to  be  appointed  by  the 
President,  with  a  veto  power  over  two-thirds  of  the  Legislature,  as  well 
as  their  judges,  the  whole  system  of  non-intervention  in  Territories — so 
popularly  phrased — becomes  a  farce.  It  is  the  acting  of  Hamlet  with 
out  the  prince. 

We  have  been  told  that  the  principles  involved  in  this  Territorial 
system  are  those  of  the  old  contest  of  the  British  Colonies ;  that  we  are 
imposing  unjust  restrictions;  that  we  deny  to  our  fellow-citizens  a  ca 
pacity  for  republican  government ;  that  the  policy  which  Lord  North 
and  his  Tory  confederates  held  towards  the  Colonies  is  the  policy  which 
we,  the  opposers  of  this  bill,  recommend  towards  the  people  of  the 
Territories.  This  is  said  because  we  are  resisting  the  attempt  to  open 
the  gates  of  Slavery,  now  closed  by  law  ;  and  this  charge  is  made  by  men, 
too,  who  have  given  us  a  Territorial  bill  which  provides  for  taxation  with 
out  representation,  and,  as  I  have  said  before,  militates  against  many 
other  principles  of  self-government?  To  make  their  case  analogous  to 
that  of  the  Colonies,  is  assuming  for  them  a  position  which  they  never 
had  under  any  interpretation  of  Territorial  relations  since  the  Govern 
ment  was  established.  And  this  is  not  the  most  fortunate  subject  of 
legislation  wherewith  to  prove  the  analogy  of  the  case.  Chief  among 
the  charges  of  complaint  made  by  our  Colonial  fathers  against  George 
III,  was  this  :  "  that  he,  had  prostituted  his  negative  for  suppressing 
every  legislative  attempt  to  prohibit  or  restrain  this  execrable  com- 


merce  "  of  Slaver}7.  If  we  were  now  forcing  Slavery  into  the  Territory, 
instead  of  "  restraining  its  commerce  "  there,  the  argument  of  analogy 
would  have  some  application. 

The  doctrine  that  the  people,  in  forming  a  State  Constitution,  had  the 
right  to  decide  for  themselves  whether  they  would  prohibit  or  tolerate 
Slavery,  was  first  formally  announced  in  February,  1847,  by  Mr.  Cal- 
houn,  who  offered  the  following  resolution  to  the  Senate : 

"  Resolved,  That  it  is  a  fundamental  principle  in  our  political  creed,  that  a  people,  in 
forming  a  Constitution,  have  the  unconditional  right  .to  form  and  adopt  the  Government 
which  they  may  think  best  calculated  to  secure  their  liberty,  prosperity,  and  happiness; 
and  that,  in  conformity  thereto,  no  other  condition  is  imposed  by  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion  on  a  State,  in  order  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union,  except  that  its  Constitution  shall 
be  republican,  and  that  the  imposition  of  any  other  by  Congress  would  not  only  be  in 
violation  of  the  Constitution,  but  in  direct  conflict  with  the  principle  on  which  our  po 
litical  system  rests." 

The  argument  now  addressed  by  the  South  on  Territorial  organi 
zation  is,  that  non-intervention  being  established  by  Congress,  the 
rights  of  Slavery  will  be  established,  and  that  slaves  can  be  carried 
into  the  Territory,  by  rights  secured  by  the  Constitution — by  that  in 
strument  which,  in  reference  to  human  bondage,  declares  u  that  no  per 
son  shall  be  deprived  of  life  or  liberty  without  due  course  of  law  !  ' 
Listen  to  what  was  said  by  Mr.  CLAY,  in  a  speech  before  the  Senate, 
July  22,  1850 : 

"You  cannot  put  your  finger  on  the  part  of  the  Constitution  which  conveys  the  right 
or  the  power  to  carry  slaves  from  one  of  the  States  of  the  Union  to  any  Territory  of  the 
United  States.  Nor  can  I  admit  for  a  single  moment  that  there  is  any  separate  or  sev 
eral  rights,  upon  the  part  of  the  States,  or  individual  members  of  a  State,  or  any  portion 
of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  to  carry  slaves  into  the  Territories,  under  the  idea 
that  these  Territories  are  held  in  common  between  the  several  States." 

Were  he  now  living,  he  would  join  us  heart  and  hand  in  resisting 
Southern  dogmas. 

The  grand  idea  of  popular  sovereignty,  said  to  be  contained  in  this 
Territorial  bill  before  us,  is  but  a  tub  to  catch  the  whale.  It  is  reduced 
down  mainly  to  non-intervention  by  Congress  on  the  subject  of  Slavery, 
for  the  benefit  of  the  South,  and  it  should  be  so  considered.  Legal 
gentlemen  differ  as  to  the  effect  of  non-intervention  even  on  this  subject. 
Constitutional  law  is  variously  construed,  and  the  extended  discussion 
of  the  Senate  on  this  point  has  done  but  little  to  enlighten  us  on  its 
practical  operation.  It  appears  to  me  that  the  Southern  institution 
rests  on  intervention ;  that  when  the  principle  is  establishad  of  non-in 
tervention  by  Congress,  that  Slavery  will  lose  its  main  support. 
Whether  the  old  Louisiana  law  would  be  revived,  on  the  repeal  of  the 
36°  30'  restriction,  has  become  a  question.  And  while  there  is  a  doubt 
on  it,  let  us  adhere  to  that  proviso  in  the  bill,  which  was  introduced  to 
prevent  it,  "  Provided^  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  con 
strued  to  revive,  or  put  in  force,  any  law  or  regulation  which  may  have 
existed  prior  to  the  act  of  March  6,  1820,  either  protecting  or  estab 
lishing,  prohibiting  or  abolishing  Slavery."  It  was  added  by  a  South 
ern  Whig  Senator,  [Mr.  BADGER,]  who  should  have  the  credit  of  this 
attempt  to  do  something  for  Northern  benefit,  in  extracting  the  claws 
of  the  monster,  which,  when  full  grown,  might  be  used  to  our  injury. 


Let  that  proviso  stand,  for  it  marks  a  boundary,  even  though  it  be  an 
outer  one. 

But  the  details  of  this  bill  all  sink  into  insignificance,  compared 
with  that  one  feature,  which  provides  that  Slavery  may  be  made 
lawful  where  it  is  now  unlawful,  and  it  has  become  a  moral  as  well  as 
political  question.  The  extent  of  territory  to  which  this  is  to  apply, 
the  length  of  time  which  has  passed  since  the  law  of  Freedom  was  there 
established,  the  law  being  more  than  half  as  old  as  the  Constitution  it 
self,  the  recklessness  with  which  this  pledge  of  public  faith  is  proposed 
to  be  broken,  must  necessarily  excite  and  alarm  the  people  of  the 
North. 

Aggression  of  Slavery  is  the  main  feature  of  the  movement  now  being 
made.  Not  content  with  the  secured  rights  of  the  slaveholders  in  the 
States,  not  satisfied  with  those  portions  of  acquired  territory  made 
slave  territory  by  consent  of  parties,  it  now  seeks  an  extension  of  limits. 
Moreover,  it  is  not  on  a  new  region,  just  acquired,  that  the  demands  of 
Slavery  are  now  made,  based  on  common  rights  in  undivided  es 
tate,  but  on  a  portion  of  the  Western  territories,  held  by  the  North,  by 
mutual  agreement  with  the  South,  under  which  they  have  secured  and 
now  hold  so  much  slave  territory  on  their  part.  From  this  great  terri 
tory  which,  by  arrangement,  by  legislation,  and  by  common  understand 
ing,  has  been  given  to  Freedom,  they  now  attempt  to  remove  that  re  • 
striction  which  has,  up  to  this  time,  effectually  barred  the  progress  of 
Slavery.  Is  not  this  an  aggressive  movement  of  Slavery  1  The  line 
of  36°  30',  established  in  1820,  ordained  by  law,  acquiesced  in  by  the 
people,  so  far  as  the  then  existing  territory  is  concerned,  is  ajixedfact^ 
whether  wisely  or  unwisely  made.  You  may  argue  on  it  from  now  until 
doomsday ;  your  expositions  of  law  and  the  Constitution  will  be  all  in 
vain  to  satisfy  the  people  that  the  Missouri  Compromise  is  morally  re- 
pealable.  True,  Congress  can  repeal  technically  the  laws  they  have 
made ;  but  they  cannot  annul  the  circumstances  creating  the  original 
necessity  of  this  law,  nor  the  doings  of  the  people  under  the  law.  The 
South  cannot  practically  do  it,  if  the  North  and  South  were  willing  to 
have  all  placed  back  as  in  1820. 

The  argument  of  progress  has  been  made  in  the  course  of  the  debate. 
It  has  been  said  that  we  are  more  enlightened  for  legislation  now,  and 
that  we  are  not  placed  under  the  same  necessities  and  circumstances  as 
in  1820.  The  one  will  find  illustration  in  our  action  on  this  bill — the 
other  ignores  all  obligations  under  agreements.  The  lapse  of  time  has 
but  added  to  the  strength  of  pledges,  and  the  weight  of  obligation  has 
been  accumulating. 

It  is  too  late  now  to  discuss  the  constitutionality  of  what  is  called  the 
Missouri  compromise  act.  I  would  as  soon  think  of  doubting  the  con 
stitutionality  of  the  Constitution  itself,  as  to  bring  that  of  the  Missouri 
compromise  into  question  now.  The  work,  as  it  was,  of  some  of  the 
most  distinguished  statesmen  of  that  day,  approved,  as  it  has  been,  by 
the  most  learned  jurists  of  our  country,  confirmed  by  universal  acqui 
escence,  and  long  considered  as  inviolable  by  the  whole  American  peo 
ple,  sanctioned  by  such  men  as  Pinckney,  Adams,  Crawford,  Calhoun, 
Wirt,  Clay,  Webster,  Lowndes,  Barbour,  and  King,  it  requires  some  self- 


12 

esteem,  as  well  as  wisdom,  to  attempt  to  prove  it  unconstitutional  now. 
But,  for  argument's  sake,  admitting  the  Southern  view  of  its  unconsti 
tutionally,  neither,  sir,  was  the  purchase  of  the  country  constitutional 
to  which  this  compromise  applies.  The  purchase  of  Louisiana  was  ad 
mitted  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  and  all  the  distinguished  men  of  the  day,  to  be 
a  violation  of  the  Constitution,  but  no  one  on  that  account  would  un 
dertake  to  undo  Jefferson's  acts.  It  has  been  approved  and  sanctioned 
by  the  people's  acquiescence  for  fifty-one  years,  as  the  Missouri  com 
promise  has  been  for  thirty-four  years  ;  and  are  they  now  to  be  over 
turned  because  they  were  originally  illegal  1  Sir,  suppose  after  a  man 
had  been  married  thirty-four  years,  with  children  and  grandchildren 
settled  about  him,  he  should  conclude  that  the  clergyman  who  perform 
ed  the  marriage  ceremony  wras  unauthorized  to  do  so,  and  that  his  mar 
riage  was  illegal — would  he  repudiate  the  mother  of  his  children  1  And 
so  wrill  not  the  American  people  repudiate  the  Missouri  compromise.  Mr. 
Chairman,  is  there  any  one  who  believes  that  the  annexation  of  Louisiana, 
by  purchase,  was  more  constitutional  than  the  establishment  of  the  old 
Missouri  compromise  line?  Is  there  a  member  from  the  South  in  this 
House  who  would  act  in  that  direction  upon  his  scruples  ;  and  do  not  gen 
tlemen  lay  themselves  open  to  a  charge  of  want  of  honest  fairness,  when 
they  present  this  as  a  reason  for  pushing  the  measure  now  before  us  ? 
I  truly  believe,  sir,  that  the  people  of  the  North,  South,  and  West, 
without  the  intervention  of  politicians,  would  stand  by  this  old  compro 
mise  with  as  much  unanimity  as  they  would  give  to  any  great  question 
that  is  likely  to  come  before  them.  I  view  this  question  practically  ; 
and  let  us  not  forget  that  the  popular  mind  is  never  affected  perma 
nently  by  any  wire-drawn  theories  of  law  or  politics.  Whether  it  was 
constitutional  or  not ;  whether  those  eminent  men  who  concurred  in  its 
constitutionality  really  believed  it  to  be  so  or  not ;  whether  the  deci 
sions  of  courts  are  sound  or  not,  practically  and  morally  the  Mis 
souri  compromise  is  irrepealable. 

It  has  been  said  here  that  the  South  must  have  more  room  ;  that  dif 
fusion  of  the  slaves  is  asked  for,  not  because  it  will  increase  their  num 
ber,  but  because  it  is  unsafe  to  have  the  slaves  of  the  country  so  con 
fined  in  space  as  they  will  be  in  a  few  years ;  and  that,  in  this  view,  it 
is  unreasonable  to  shut  them  out  of  common  territory.  The  slave  States 
have  now  nearly  fifty  per  cent,  more  territory  than  the  free  States,  and 
the  free  States  have  nearly  fifty  per  cent,  more  population  than  the 
slave  States.  Now,  if  there  is  anything  in  the  argument  of  expansion 
of  the  slave  area  to  preserve  Slavery,  and  that  is  to  be  the  principle  of 
future  application,  is  it  not  time  for  the  free  States  to  come  to  a  conclu 
sion  at  once  to  resist  all  future  Slavery  aggression  1  What  has  given  to 
the  slave  power  the  ascendency,  the  management  of  Government,  the 
wielding  of  the  political  power  of  the  nation,  and  the  control  over  our 
legislation!  It  is  not  population,  for  they  have  now  only  nine  millions, 
(including  their  three  million  slaves,)  against  the  thirteen  millions  of 
the  free  States.  Of  the  two,  it  must  be  territory ;  for  there  are  in 
the  slave  States  nine  hundred  thousand  square  miles,  in  the  free  States 
only  six  hundred  thousand.  We  have  the  advantage  in  population, 
and_lose ;  they  the  most  territory ,  and  gain  the  power.  This  should 


13 

be  well  considered,  at  a  time  when  they  are  grasping  at  additional  power 
through  the  removal  of  a  Slavery  barrier,  time-honored,  and  heretofore 
sacred,  the  very  attempt  furnishing  a  striking  illustration  of  the  reck 
lessness  of  Slavery  aggression.* 

Heretofore  the  South  has  complained  of  agitation  in  the  North,  but 
now  the  North  has  reason  to  complain  not  only  of  agitation  but  aggres 
sion  from  the  South.  The  South  may  succeed  in  this  encroachment  on 
the  rights  of  the  North,  but  I  ask  gentlemen  to  consider  what  is  to  enure 
to  the  South  by  this  bill  to  abrogate  the  restricting  clause  of  the  Mis 
souri  compromise.  The  North  are  not  going  to  sit  down  supinely,  and 
see  this  work  of  aggression  go  on.  You  will  drive  them  to  means 
which  they  well  know  how  to  use.  They  will  form  Nebraska  associa 
tions,  and  furnish  the  pecuniary  means  for  emigrating  there.  They  will 
send  out  their  people  by  thousands  ;  and,  sir,  you  may  judge  what  dis 
position  towards  Slavery  such  settlers  will  possess.  Yankee  free 
schools  will  be  established,  u  meeting  houses"  erected,  and  Northern 
clergymen  will  be  on  that  field  of  duty.  The  free  press,  that  busy  and 
mighty  agent,  will  be  there  too.  After  you  have  driven  the  North  to 
secure  by  these  artificial  appliances  what  wras  theirs  by  law,  when  those 
who  have  been  carried  there  under  such  circumstances  shall  have  got 
this  moral  machinery  at  work,  I  ask,  again,  what  will  the  South  have 
gained?  Sir,  in  my  opinion,  so  far  as  regards  their  cherished  object — 
the  propagation  of  Slavery  institutions — they  have  proceeded  most 
unwittingly  in  pressing  this  measure,  so  obnoxious  to  the  North. 

I  well  recollect,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  in  1850  a  Southern  Senator, 
[Mr.  BADGER,]  strongly  appealing  to  the  North  against  applying  the 
Wilmot  proviso  to  the  Territories  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico,  after  show 
ing  that  nothing  could  be  gained  by  so  doing,  as  Slavery  would  not  be 
come  part  and  parcel  of  those  Territories,  asked  why  the  North,  having 
nothing  to  gain  thereby,  would  insist  upon  doing  an  act  which  the  South 
considered  ungracious  and  unneighborly,  and  provocative  of  resentment 
and  ill-feeling?  How  is  it  with  the  South  now?  Is  it  because  the 
North  refrained  at  that  time  from  doing  what  wras  represented  as  so 
distateful  to  the  South,  that  they  are  now  pushing  a  measure  so  offen 
sive  to  the  North,  not  merely  in  reference  to  the  future,  but  by  the  re 
peal  of  an  act  in  which  the  legislation  of  the  past  thirty  years  has  been 
involved  ? 

I  know,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  there  are  some  here,  and  I  would  fain 
hope  that  there  are  many,  to  whom  this  measure  has  as  few  charms  as 
it  has  to  me,  bnt  who,  nevertheless,  are  constrained  to  take  a  course 
different  from  that  which  my  judgment  and  my  conscience  dictate  to 

*  The  last  census  shows — 

The  area  of  the  slave  States  to  be 928,947  square  miles. 

That  of  the  free  States 643,326  " 


Difference  in  favor  of  slave  States 285,621 

Population  of  slave  States 9,663,997 

Population  of  free  States   - 13,434,849 

Difference  in  favor  of  free  States     -----------  3,770,842 


14 

me.  Considering  it  a  sectional  movement,  and  that,  as  such,  the  bill 
before  us  will  not  receive,  in  full  measure,  the  opposition  which  the 
merits  of  the  details  of  the  bill  would  independently  elicit,  I  am  pained 
to  see  it  supported  by  Northern  men,  without  whose  aid  this  fountain 
of  the  bitter  waters  of  strife  could  never  be  opened.  Well  may  the 
North  exclaim,  on  reading  the  list  of  ayes  on  this  measure,  "  and  you, 
too,  my  sons  !  r- 

The  passage  of  the  abrogation  of  the  Missouri  compromise  should 
be  no  cause  for  exultation  to  any  lover  of  his  country.  He  only  who 
can  enjoy  the  angry  contentions  of  different  sections,  who  can  laugh  at 
those  convulsions  which  cause  patriots  to  mourn,  can  see  cause  to  re 
joice  in  the  passage  of  the  bill  before  us.  I  am  not  of  the  school  of 
political  Abolitionists.  Their  motto,  as  given  by  the  honorable  gentle 
man  from  New  York,  [GERRIT  SMITH,]  is  "  unconditional,  entire,  and 
immediate  abolition."  To  such  a  doctrine  I  cannot  subscribe.  Noth 
ing  seems  to  me  more  visionary,  however  sincere ;  nothing  more  imprac 
ticable,  however  earnestly  sought.  They  may  be  the  instruments  of 
ultimate  good ;  but  oh !  through  what  evil  would  that  good  come,  if 
their  system  were  tested  by  actual  accomplishment !  I  would  as  soon 
undertake  to  extinguish  the  running  fire  of  the  prairie,  by  treading 
with  naked  feet  the  burning  grass,  as  to  abolish  Slavery  through  the 
way  proposed  by  the  Abolitionist.  It  has  grown  with  our  growth,  and 
strengthened  with  our  strength.  It  must  be  treated  in  the  light  of 
political  economy,  as  well  as  by  a  theory  of  morals.  The  problem,  I 
know,  is  a  difficult  one  to  solve. 

The  present  political  power  of  Slavery  is  startling.  The  three  hun 
dred  thousand  slaveholders,  scattered  through  one  half  the  States  of 
the  Union,  hold  not  the  balance  of  power,  but  constitute  the  political 
power  of  the  Government ;  and  this  they  do  through  the  three  millions 
of  slaves  they  hold.  How  long  this  is  to  continue,  none  can  tell.  I 
have  faith  in  the  progress  and  prosperity,  moral  and  material,  of  my 
country.  God,  in  his  infinite  wisdom,  has  ways  past  finding  out.  A 
few  years  ago,  Ireland,  with  her  famishing  people,  was  a  subject  of  deep 
anxiety  to  the  leading  men  of  Great  Britain,  and  presented  to  the 
world  a  problem  of  humanity  which  neither  philanthropy,  philosophy, 
nor  patriotism,  could  solve.  But  the  whole  was  made  plain  when  the 
Irish  exodus  to  the  land  of  liberty  commenced.  I  believe  that  America 
is  an  instrument  of  christianizing,  civilizing,  and  elevating  the  negro 
race,  though  the  elements  of  civilization  come  to  them  through  the  bit 
ter  draught  of  Slavery.  But  this  no  more  justifies  the  propagation  of 
Slavery  than  the  improved  political  and  social  condition  of  the  Irish 
here  justifies  the  hard  policy  of  England,  which  drove  them  from  their 
country.  I  do  not  consider  this  question  in  reference  to  the  blacks 
merely.  It  is  one  affecting  the 'moral  interests  of  our  own  people. 

Whatever  good  and  whatever  evil  there  is  in  agitation,  is  now  to  be 
shared  between  the  Southern  politician  and  the  political  Abolitionist. 
The  conservatism  of  the  North,  so  long  attacked  by  the  Abolition  par 
ty,  is  now  made  the  object  of  taunt  by  the  South.  The  slaveholder 
and  Abolitionist  have  become  political  agitators,  and  on  this  ground  are 
political  allies  ;  allied,  too,  against  those  who  have  been  disposed  to 


15 

denounce  radicalism,  from  whichever  side.  Too  late  now  for  the  South 
to  point  the  finger  at  the  sectional  agitator,  for  they  are  taking  their 
turn  at  the  same  game.  If  they  succeed  in  passing  this  bill,  they  will 
have  served  the  purposes  of  their  bitterest  opponents  on  the  Slavery 
question.  Succeeding  in  this,  you  strike  down  not  solely  the  Missouri 
compromise  act,  but  the  superstructure  and  foundation  of  every  com 
promise  go  with  it,  and  no  ground  left  whereon  to  construct  another — 
nothing  left  to  interpose  between  the  Southern  institution  and  the  sharp 
demands  of  the  extremist  of  the  North.  If  the  South  want  this  state 
of  things,  let  me  assure  them  they  will  certainly  secure  it  through  the 
passage  of  the  bill  before  us.  Moreover,  aggression  brings  resistance, 
and  restoration  will  follow  abrogation. 


XOTE. — The  bill  \vas  adopted  on  Monday,  May  22d,  by  the  following  vote  : 

For.  Against. 

Democrats  from  slave  States                                                                   57  4 

Democrats  from  free  States                        -                                                 43  43 

Whigs  from  slave  States                  ______         13  5 

Whigs  from  free  States                                       -  41 

Free-Soil       -                                               _         _         _         _         _         —  4 

113  100 


